Is it time to pull out of Iraq regardless?

Great Debates
21

Oh, I certainly agree this is what they have in mind. I just think its going to turn out to be a mistake in the long run…while if they had kept generally to fighting the American’s directly would have given them the moral high ground both in Iraq and throughout the world (and especially in the Muslim world). However, as I said before, my powers of prediction are pretty bad so…

Agreed. I’m HOPE its the former and not the later.

Well, assuming you mean from the Administration/Bush, I’m not holding my breath on that one. Especially since Bush et al won the damned election. Even if it all falls apart I’m not certain they would come out and acknowledge that they fucked up by involving us in Iraq in the first place unfortunately.

-XT

22

Should the troops pull out? The answer lies in a balancing of these forces:

  1. Should they have invaded in the first place?
  2. What are they NOW trying to achieve? What are the current goals?
  3. Are these goals worth it?
  4. Assuming they are, is real progress being made?
  5. What would happen if the troops dropped everything now and left?
  6. Are these civilian shootings reasonable?

Please feel free to add to the list!

The greatest difficulty I have jumping into this debate is: What is the truth? Who can we trust? I’m the first to admit it: I’m an ignorant boob in matters of the Iraq war. Maybe, in revealing my ignorance, those who know more can rightly correct where I’m wrong (and where likely others are wrong). So here goes…

First a bias disclaimer: I support my government (Canada) in having not joined the invasion, based on the its not endorsed by the UN. I’m of opinion that those who say “peace at all costs” are deluding themselves but so are those who say “I always support the troops in every case (i.e. the fact the troops are there - the troops don’t decide where they go).” I believe a just military action is hampered by over-sensitive public reaction to casualties - but I believe too often military action is not justified, or too close to the threshold and thus ill-advised. I guess this amounts to being a radical fence-sitter.

Here’s my stand on the Iraq war: It shouldn’t have happened. But given that it did, the troops should finish the job and not pull out before the Iraqi government is fully installed. The problems identified in the OP should be addressed, but in the context of the troops remaining. The following is my attempt to take as step back and understand how I arrived at this stand (and to invite correction and opposition).

1) Should they have invaded in the first place?
If it can be argued they should not have, that adds weight to the argument they should then get out. Before the invasion, we were led to believe WMDs were in Iraq under Saddam’s control. I trusted “those who knew” that maybe something was mounting and something needed to be done. It is clear today WMDs were not found. Either Bush/Blair knew and lied, were misinformed, or were right and the WMDs were destroyed or moved. Irrespective, though, I believe there were options short of invasion yet unexplored.

The unilateral action of the US to assemble the CotW, with options yet unexplored, smelled of there being something more to the story than the weapons inspections or “the war on terrorism.” It seemed to be an after-the-fact rationalization to say, “See, the world is a better place with Saddam out of the picture.” Why? There are other dictators in other violent regimes that do not attract the attention of the US (or the world - or me, shame on us all). This high minded sentiment didn’t apply during the time the Rwandan genocide could have been prevented. Why Iraq?

A popular meme is, “It’s all about oil and nothing more.” There’s likely to be some truth to this, but it’s likely overstated. I applaud Bush’s intention to ameliorate a looming energy crisis (not to mention dealing with the current problems). Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the real reason all along - but put aside whether the WMD talk was deceptive or misinformed. The shape of the world we enjoy today was in part carved by bloody battles waged by those seeking to improve their lot. It would be hypocritical of me to deride a war for resources when I enjoy the fruits of such wars past.

The question should still be debated: If this was predominantly a war for resources, was this invasion therefore justified? I say no.

Should they have invaded in the first place? No, the invasion was ill-advised. But having said that, I do not believe the reasons were so egregious as to suggest that today they should pull out.
2) What are they NOW trying to achieve? What are the current goals?
Irrespective of why they went in (or whether we know the real reasons) - what is it that needs to be done now that they’re there? I know the ultimate goal is to install a democratic constitutionally based government to turn the keys over to. Are there other objectives being sought? What are the day to day objectives? What are the type of things that need to be done by the end of this week in furtherance of the ultimate objective? I have no answers - I hope someone here does. But the corollary questions these give rise to is: Can these objectives be met without support of US troops, along with CotW troops? as well as…

3) Are these goals worth it?
Again, I don’t know the tactical goals that lead up to the primary goal of the Iraqi government. My best guess is nothing more than: keep the peace while rebuilding infrastructure, assist in that building. It seems to me to pull out too soon would be both to shirk the responsibility of the invading troops as well as to lay vulnerable a state about to be born.

4) Assuming they (the goals) are worth it, is real progress being made?
It seems apparent from furt’s link that there is. I wish more success stories were published!

5) What would happen if the troops dropped everything now and left?
I have no way to predict this, but it seems obvious all hell would break loose. Does anyone think otherwise, if so why?

6) Are these civilian shootings reasonable?
It is sooo difficult to be reasonable when death is involved. On the face of OP’s link, I’m outraged at what appears to be reckless killings. Does that link tell the whole story? Remember this is what war is - these are the decisions individual soldiers must make. This is why we must be soooooooo careful before launching an invasion. Thanks to David Simmons for bringing this up here. The spotlight of public scrutiny must always stay focussed on areas where power may be abused (maliciously or accidentally). Even if the invasion was completely justified, we must continually examine how such operations are handled, and question when they should end.

23

It seems to me that the "check back in thirty years"plea is just a stall. It is perhaps based on the expectation, or hope, or whatever, that Iraq will have a functioning representative government that isn’t controlled by one or another religious sect. It also means to me that GW is going to leave it for someone else to straighten out.

But, y’now, I don’t think that whatever emerges as independent Iraq is going to be worth all the blood and treasure that we are spending there. It would be hypothetically nice if the Iraqis are free to do as they please in their own country but when you come right down to it I don’t give a damn. The goal for the Iraq war that was finally stated after all the others went in the crapper, i.e. bring freedom and democracy to Iraq isn’t all that high on my to do list.

24

So … no accountability for anything, ever?

Personally I’m very pleased with how the Bay of Pigs is turning out. But I’m not quite ready to make a call on whether declaring war on the Kaiser was a good idea or not … .

25

I think it was an incredibly bad idea for the US to get involved in WWI…and that WWI itself was an incredibly stupid thing for the Europeans to do in the first place, especially in light of how they fucked it up at the peace table by putting revenge sanctions on Germany and setting the stage for round two. Thats what perspective gives you.

-XT

26

This just serves to hammer home how ill-conceived the invasion was in the first place. Even if the Iraqui’s manage to cobble together a constitution and create some semblance of national unity the country is just going to collapse into three seperate, and possibly warring, states. The Kurds are just shoring up their own powerbase for either a push for power or a declaration of independence whereas the Shites are going to create a theocracy.

What an utter nightmare.

27

Upon which the war supporters will just say “Well, a civil war would have happened anyway once Saddam died of old age or whatever.”

After the WMD fiasco was played out on this board, it’s pretty obvious that there is no way ti pin the hawks down to a success-or-failure test. There is always a weasel route.

28

One wonders if they would be similarly circumspect if the occupation were going well:

“True, true, we were welcomed by flowers and bonbons and Iraq is now a shining beacon of democracy and free market capitalism, but we should refrain from praising the President. Thirty years from now the perspective of history may well reveal that what seemed at first like a glorious victory has proved over time to be a dreadful mistake.”

Unless you can lay out a plausable scenario for how the situation may be salvaged, saying “well, maybe it wall all work out right in the end” is just wishful thinking.

29

This is a funny time to be asking that question. We should be getting a first peek at the Iraqi constitution on or about August 15th. If it’s a piece of garbage that gets everyone over there mad at everyone else it might be time to consider leaving. If it’s something that all Iraqis can live with, it might be worth staying.
The heat over there right now is supressing the insurgency, and it’s still bad. Unless the constitution makes a big hit, things’ll get very bad come fall.

30

I don’t see that it is a wrong time to think about getting out. Assuming most Iraqis accept the constitution and form a government ,our leaders and their supporters are still talking about a long period of US presence before Iraq security forces can maintain domestic peace. I question whether the resulting Iraq is worth to us what the cost to us would be under those circumstances. The idea of spending billions of dollars and lots of lives for such an vague, and possibly ephemeral, outcome doesn’t go down well with me at all.

31

If you got 30 years of peace out of any invasion I’d be the first person to say it was a rip-roaring success. I’m no peacenik. Sometimes, war works.

32

True, but it happens so damn rarely, it isn’t worth playing the percentages.

33

The only thing war decides is who makes the rules after the shooting stops.

The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and resulted in economic revival in France and Germany. I think that does more for peace than all the wars ever fought.

The peace during the cold war was maintained by MAD, not war.

34

No, it’s the intellectually sane one. To repeat some things I said in another thread:

– The Revolutionary War started in 1776; no victories at all for year, the tide didn’t really turn until sudden victory in 1781. I think it’s fair to day that in 1779 a lot of people thought it was going to fail.

– The Civil War started early 1861, and the tide didn’t turn until late 1864. There was considerable sentiment in the north that the war was a failure: McClellan got 45% of the vote running on essentially a “peace now” platform.

– Fighting began in Krea in June 1950 and was a series of defeats for months … then it was victories for months … then defeats again, as China entered the war and the specter of the conflict turning nuclear emerged … Truman declined to run in 1952 he was quite unpopular, in large part because the perception that Korea was a pointless failure.

After two years of bloody stalemate, the armistace yielded a border roughly where it had been before the war, and For many years, the US-backed government of the south was nearly as authoritarian as that in the north. I think someone in 1955 – and indeed, much of the 60s – would have have had an excellent case that the whole thing was a waste; and in fact there were many in the south who did assert that they would have been.

Now, of course, all of those conflicts are seen as successes; but they all looked quite bad at the time.

Which is not to say that Iraq won’t be a failure … just that jumping to conclusions only couple of years is rather hasty.

35

:smack: what the hell is wrong with me and the preview button tonight?

36

At some point, you have to know when to stop throwing good money after bad. We’re reaching that point. I’m afraid the new Iraqi constitution, even if drafted by the ghost of Madison, is not going to make any difference. The reality is that Iraq’s new government is going to be anarchy, and it will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

“Give it thirty years”. I don’t think so. The citizens of 2035 are going to look back at this generation with contempt and see this war as the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. The Pottery Barn rule is you break it, you buy it. The US broke it, but there is nobody to buy it from. A despotic but stable government has been replaced by anarchy. More Iraqis are dead because of the war than Saddam would have killed. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists until the US opened the floodgates and provided the recruiting drive. By any measure, this war is an utter catastrophe.

“We all thought Saddam had WMDs”. Big whoop. So we did. We had ways to deal with it without invading Iraq. The UN inspectors were on the ground and Saddam was giving them access. There was a no fly zone over much of the country. His army was in shambles. Even if he had weapons, he had no means of delivery and he was effectively contained. Bush took a situation that wasn’t broke and tried to fix it.

Does American presence help or hurt? With each day, I’m becoming more convinced that it hurts. If the US stays, the insurgency continues and dozens of people are killed each and every week. If the US leaves, somebody is going to come up on top. It won’t be a democratic government, but this was all a fanciful pipe dream anyway. Time to cut and run.

37

Let’s not try to confuse the issue with facile comparisons to past wars. None of the instances you cited are remotely similar to Iraq. In none of them was a small US military force surrounded by millions of either hostile, potentialy hostile, or resentfult people.

In none of them were US troops worried that the guy standing on the street corner might be going to blow them up so they preemptively shoot him. That was the situation described in the referenced news article and that’s what raises my concern about the long term ability of our military to accomplish anything worthwhile in Iraq.

That’s my problem, not some past war that has no similarity whatever.

38

Fine; but ISTM that if you’re going to go with the approach of “there is no historical precedent for this situation,” then that’s all the more reason to adopt a wait-and-see attitude rather than basing conclusions on a few headlines. YMMV.

39

Just because you came up with clunkers doesn’t mean There is no historical situation that is similar. The one I’m thinking of involved American military forces of limited number in a populous nation whose population was hostile to their presence, indifferent to it or trying to make a buck out of it. That would be Vietnam.

And a few headlines? You really have to take this more seriously. There is considerable documented evidence that ourcontinued occupation is resented by the Sunnis and that babble like that of VP Cheney is wildly overoptomistic.

All that is needed to really exacerbate the situtation is to anger the majority Shiites which is what events like those described in the OP cite tend to do.

I really don’t see how it can be defended that opponents of the war are the ones jumping to conclustions based upon faulty information. I have a lot of difficulty understanding how any rational person can be moved so easily from “Saddam has WMD that threaten us” to “We must fight for Iraqi democracy.”

40

Actually, the historical precedent I would point to would not be a war between nations, nor a war on US soil, but a war in which US troops were fighting in a foreign land against an insurgency comprising the people of that land themselves, “for their own good”.

It begins with a V.